China will win. Because they plan years to decades ahead and theyre constantly building, advancing, progressing. The US only plans as far ahead as the next quarter. Our only concern is shareholder returns. Nary a thought to environmental degradation, the state of the domestic economy, the goodwill of their citizens. The long term viability of our economy is entirely at the whims of a couple dozen inhuman ghouls with enough money to buy the moon. And as long as they get everything they want our government will let us starve and die in the street.
Not only that, but America’s governmental goals change every 2-4 years. Consistency is needed to make progress
Shush about that, at least for the next 3.4 years.
China will lose for the same reason the United States is losing. Making decisions that benefit people generally, either short term or long term, is exactly what autocracies are terrible at. For all the ‘green washing’ of China’s domestic policy, they are tacitly supporting and funding a war of aggression in Ukraine, and expanding their military in order to annex Taiwan. If their goal was ecological harmony, neither of those things would make sense.
China’s central leadership will burn their nation’s children to fuel their expansionist ideology, not to mention coal or petrol. Incandescent lightbulbs and disposable plastic is peanuts compared to incandescent diesel tanks and disposable jets.
The ‘China is winning’ headline is effective clickbait for jingoistic nationalists, but it’s misguided to think fanning a national spirit of competition will change US government policy against the will of US national corporate interests. The United States and Chinese government are the same parasite with different flags.
Lots of assumptions here. Historically, China has expanded through soft power, it’s literally a meme how little they use their military. They might go all-in on a massive conflict with the US+allies over Taiwan, but given their history I kinda doubt it. All the sabre rattling is exactly that. They’re telegraphing that they’re willing to be difficult over the issue, and they’re looking for the same sort of deal Putin is currently cutting with Trump.
The question of whether they will do better at ‘going green’ than the US is unquestionably yes even if they start a major military conflict, simply for the fact that they are making major investements in it. Massive expansions in rail and public transit, nuclear power, solar power, hydrothermal power, electric vehicles…China added more green energy generation last year than the entire rest of the world combined. You can absolutely critize the CCCP for lots of things, but greener than the USA? Impossible to deny.
You can absolutely critize the CCCP for lots of things, but greener than the USA?
The US gets 15% of its energy capacity from coal. China gets nearly 60% of its energy capacity from Coal and while a new coal fired power plant hasn’t broken ground in the United States this century, China approved at least 5 GW of new coal power plants in the last five years.
Despite coal power being more dirty and expensive for China than renewables, they continue to subsidize energy from Coal and set quotas to limit renewables. China is the largest producer and consumer of coal and is the largest user of coal-derived electricity.
While in the United States the historically recognized limited freedom of the people to resist corporate power with popular direct action has lead to concessions and checks on industrial power, any similar dynamic in China is stunted. In order to save the planet, we must seek new political horizons beyond belligerent national tyrannies. Autocrats will not save us.
They reached 50%+ electricity from renewables in 2024. Their emissions almost fell except for other sectors. Coal and NG electricity production fell 10%+ each. Their emissions will go down, despite yet more massive energy use increases (over 8% growth in 2024) in 2025. Coal plant constuction is irrelevant if they are used as resilience/backup power instead of baseload.
Are you getting those numbers from Xinhua? You don’t have a lot of credibility given you think degrowth is cannibalism and your embrace of Chinese propaganda:
They’ve been aggressively surrounding themselves with US military outposts this whole time!!! Much aggression.
But for those who haven’t drunk the kool-aid, Xinhua claims 50% capacity, not 50% generation. Renewable energy generation according to the National Bureau of Statistics of China remains at 25.9% - and nuclear is included in that number. Many observers have noted that China overbuilds housing capacity, only to demolish empty or nearly finished buildings - suggesting a scheme to over-report GDP and other favorable numbers. They are experiencing an ongoing property crisis as a result of poor economic planning. Given that context, their report that the state is celebrating reaching 50% capacity solar energy goals while using much less than half of that capacity should be alarming. There is no indication that their coal infrastructure is meant only for backup power - the use of coal is being subsidized by the state, and the existing infrastructure is under constant use.
Both capitalism and whatever you call the economic system China is using are extremely ecologically destructive. While the small improvements in renewable energy technology under these systems can benefit humanity, it’s important not to ignore the deep inequality and inefficiency inherent in these modes of production. Things made under these regimes will never be truly “green” – and it benefits only the powerful to pretend that they are.
Your XInhua link is from 2023. I said 2024 data. Its mwh produced not mw capacity.
China’s central leadership will burn their nation’s children to fuel their expansionist ideology
While you accuse me of propaganda for pushing back on this with the last 20 years of propaganda points on “theory that China has always been losing”… in 2024, over 8% electricity demand growth is a big/real number, and 4.5% auto sales growth for all of 2024 is representative of real middle+ class wealth growth. 18.1% in june 2025. vs. US flat in June/July this year.
While the small improvements in renewable energy technology under these systems can benefit humanity, it’s important not to ignore the deep inequality and inefficiency inherent in these modes of production.
Degrowth is not a socially or democratically viable policy. Massive job losses that people depend on buying nice and necessary things that employ others. You can advise people on the benefits of dropping out of consumerism, perhaps a few people would agree with the lifestyle change, but structurally imposing on them will not go over well, and the job part is not something most people have the option of letting go of.
Renewables is able to provide all energy needs on the planet. Green H2 stabilizing electricity with transportable fuel and heat. It is vital base element in fertilizer and Iron ore reduction as per OP. It is a viable alternative to both degrowth and Oligarchy protection. Job replacement instead of job destruction.
It seems you’re spreading false information about what degrowth represents. In case you or anyone else is interested in what it stands for, here are some resources to help you better understand the movement.
Degrowth is an academic and social movement aimed at the planned and democratic reduction of production and consumption as a solution to purported social-ecological crises. Commonly cited policy goals of degrowth include reducing the environmental impact of human activities, redistributing income and wealth within and between countries, and encouraging a shift from materialistic values to a convivial and participatory society. Degrowth is a multi-layered concept that combines critiques of capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, productivism, and utilitarianism, while envisioning more caring, just, convivial, happy, and democratic societies.
Essential for Degrowth is:
- Striving for a self-determined life in dignity for all. This includes deceleration, time welfare and conviviality.
- An economy and a society that sustains the natural basis of life.
- A reduction of production and consumption in the global North and liberation from the one-sided Western paradigm of development. This could allow for a self-determined path of social organization in the global South.
- An extension of democratic decision-making to allow for real political participation.
- Social changes and an orientation towards sufficiency instead of purely technological changes and improvements in efficiency in order to solve ecological problems. We believe that it has historically been proven that decoupling economic growth from resource use is not possible.
- The creation of open, connected and localized economies.
Nature: Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help
Researchers in ecological economics call for a different approach — degrowth. Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being. This approach, which has gained traction in recent years, can enable rapid decarbonization and stop ecological breakdown while improving social outcomes. It frees up energy and materials for low- and middle-income countries in which growth might still be needed for development. Degrowth is a purposeful strategy to stabilize economies and achieve social and ecological goals, unlike recession, which is chaotic and socially destabilizing and occurs when growth-dependent economies fail to grow.
The Guardian: ‘These ideas are incredibly popular’: what is degrowth and can it save the planet?
“It is bad economics and it is also anti-scientific,” says Jason Hickel, the author of Less Is More. “People need to understand that ‘growth’ is not the same as social progress.”
Hickel is one of the leading lights in a growing post-growth or degrowth movement. Its proponents argue that economic success cannot be measured through the crude metric of gross domestic product (GDP) and that there needs to be a managed reduction in growth in carbon-intensive countries and industries.
“Growth simply means an increase in aggregate production, as measured in market prices,” says Hickel. “So, according to GDP growth, producing £1m worth of teargas is considered exactly the same as producing £1m worth of affordable housing or healthcare.”
the sabre rattling is mostly a distraction from internal problems. population issues, yes even they trying to solve that right now.
China will lose for the same reason the United States is losing. Making decisions that benefit people generally, either short term or long term, is exactly what autocracies are terrible at.
Autocracies are not inherently terrible at anything in particular, except a stable system of governance across generations. Autocrats are perfectly capable of prioritising the people, and there are many cases in history of them doing so.
China’s central leadership will burn their nation’s children to fuel their expansionist ideology
That’s honestly hard to judge. China hasn’t entered an actual modern war, so it’s hard to tell how ruthless their war leadership will be when they actually take losses. Especially considering Chinese culture and the 1-child policy, high casualties might provoke a domestic retaliation.
They’re certainly expansionist, and their neighbours are being very wary of them with extremely good cause.
If their goal was ecological harmony, neither of those things would make sense.
They have more than one goal, like any other country. Ecological harmony may not be at the top of the priority list, but they’re making significant progress on that front. Whether that’s due to genuine concern for the environment or a desire to sell stuff to the rest of the world doesn’t matter.
The ‘China is winning’ headline is effective clickbait for jingoistic nationalists
That doesn’t make it any less true. It’s pretty undeniable that China is catching up or pulling ahead on many fronts, and the US under Trump is determined to squander whatever remaining advantage they have.
Autocrats are perfectly capable of prioritising the people, and there are many cases in history of them doing so.
There’s a reason this is always the exception and not the rule. Let me introduce you to The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey, based on the book The Dictator’s Handbook.
While I’m sure it’s probably a very interesting book, I’m not watching an entire video or reading a book just to figure out if you have a point to contribute in an ongoing discussion. Cite it or use it as a source sure, but not just throw random media titles around with no context.
I’m not asking you to read a book, but if you’ve never heard of CGP Grey before nor seen his short Rules for Rulers video, you’re missing out.
I’m not a video guy. Honestly, the book synopsis sounds interesting and I’ll probably put it on my reading list. Videos in general are a no no for me.
Respect on the size of them nuts. Posting this drivel and actually using the term “jingoistic nationalist” as an attack on someone else.
Whew boy. Mmh. Go find big balls and beat him up. Tell him that’s your name now.
China’s central leadership will burn their nation’s children to fuel their expansionist ideology
They’ve been aggressively surrounding themselves with US military outposts this whole time!!! Much aggression.
China will win simply because they currently aren’t denying reality and examining their own large intestines via Joe Rogan-esque platitudes.
I’ll give the current version of America one thing: very flexible. Never seen heads so far up asses before. Fascism must come with exercise DVDs or something.
will it win on green-
No heed to finish that sentence; yes. Obviously yes. Theres no culture war against going green there. They’re literally moving literally at all in the right direction; yes
There’s no such thing as green steel. Zero/low emissions steel requires expanded steel usage to meet the energy infrastructure requirements for production.
Getting enough hydrogen to process steel, in particular, takes a massive amount of energy. This means more renewable infrastructure to offset that, combined with more transmission infrastructure (and shorter renewable lifespans) you can easily exceed 10-20x the steel intensity per MW of non-renewable sources.
As with most ecological problems, the solution is to cut our usage to a minimum. The tired lie that we can grow our way out of growth problem should be put to rest. Reporting on any country “winning” a “green race” is puff piece propoganda.
We need both; avoiding the use of energy-intensive materials, and minimizing emissions when we manufacture them. This isn’t an either/or situation.
That’s also a pretty tired response. There’s a huge percentage of the world population that are experiencing, or about to, a boom in their living standards. There’s absolutely no chance that global consumption will drop anytime soon. Given that realistic constraint, anything we can do to make production greener will help.
Renewables (with H2) can achieve type 1 civilization. Instead of interfering with a country’s attempt to provide us all with type 1 civilization status, and recommend cannibalism (surely a vote for eating the rich will prevail instead of eating you) instead for the lower consumption version of sustainability. Murderous war is perfectly acceptable alternative to cannibalism even if we (survivor class) are deprived of yummy babies.
What is this word salad supposed to mean?..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale . Type 1 for earth would be 10 QW = 10000 TW average consumption. We are currently at 18TW. Type 1 just from renewables is a bit of a stretch, as the definition is full coverage of earth’s surface in Solar. But 5.5x energy growth requires just 1% of planet surface.
I know what a type 1 civilization is but why is it something to aspire to? And how does it justify the irreversible ecological destruction which must be inflicted to get there?
Production (and it’s correlated consumption) as the sole measure of societal development is a Cold War anachronism, leave that in the 20th century. Talking about MW of power and Mt. of materials and dollar efficiency of infrastructure is completely detached from the derived human value.
how does it justify the irreversible ecological destruction which must be inflicted to get there?
It’s a better goal than forcing people to die.
Who’s to say we’re the survivor class?
And a type 1 civilization isn’t even close to attainable in the near future, let alone before climate change makes it more and more difficult to achieve. Especially if we’re sparing the rich and promoting yet another war in the name of energy as opposed to actually dialing back and being conscious of what we impact.
Will the hydrogen bomb defeat coughing baby? (Most likely.)
At high temperature near the melting point of metals like steel, hydrogen embrittlement becomes a relevant issue. Its basically hydrogen atoms that make it into the metal crystal lattice making the metal more brittle than it would normally be.
It’s well-enough solved to produce a product that’s useful for things like making bicycles or cars. There are some specific situations (eg: the cables on a suspension bridge) where it’s probably an issue still.
Guys used to complain about Chinesium metal. Now that stuff is used in a more purposeful way only for housings and such. Harder material for bearings and gears. The quality has improved quite a bit on tools.
The hydrogen economy is a natural conclusion of massive renewable deployments. Last year, China’s largest retail refueling station was offering $4.86/kg (35y). This year, there are 27.5y = $3.82/kg price in another station. In April, Green H2 production in China was announced at 125k mt. In a fuel cell vehicle, $3.82/kg is equivalent to $1.91/gallon diesel price in range. These are all market prices, with markup, though the stations may have been subsidized as in rest of world. (California’s scarcity capitalism model has $34/kg price)
Europe has Nel Hydrogen (Norway) which was a pioneer in electrolysis, and its equipment can, today, produce below $2/kg green H2 costs, if surplus electricity (from abundant renewables) costs 2c/kwh. The economics of renewables are dominated by financing costs, but less so for H2 electrolysis.
There should never have been any hope for US to contribute to climate sustainability. A Zionist first warmongering rulership needs oil to fight over, and to get middle east allies for Israel first US enforced Israel supremacist world order. Climate was only ever a slow transition that if slow, the US could play a role in domestic energy through a new emerging political oligarchy constituency. It is US policy/agenda to enslave its colonies to climate terrorism, no matter how little domestic climate terrorist energy they produce. There is no future for constructive US participation in climate sustainability. Even before Trump, the cheapest home solar options in US were 3x the cost of most expensive Australian market.
For Europe, to champion Nel as a H2 solution, it needs the cheapest abundant solar options (China), to have cheap H2. EU desperate sycophancy to CIA warmongering agenda makes their future uncertain.
Steel or logistics companies have better economics than retail marked up refueling stations. They can use their cost of production as their fuel or enrichment costs. They can have unlimited dedicated solar to either sell to grid, or procuce 2c/kwh input H2 = sub $2/kg H2 costs = $1/gallon diesel fuel. At $2/kg, a 400kw truck or 400mw fleet of 1000 trucks, can profit at 10c/kwh wholesale electricity rates during duck curve or overnight rates when truck driver is sleeping. The duck curve angle is there because that is also rush hour, and getting trucks off the road, a help for traffic. Batteries are better value most days, but the backstop of commercial vehicles being able to choose to park and rest, and make money some days is enough resilience for 100% renewable electricity civilization.
H2’s role in decarbonizing steel is a bit ahead of its time. It can decarbonize all heat. But price is what matters, and $2/kg costs is enough to justify for many applications including steel, but today, without infrastructure/price subsidies, that requires full permits for self solar + self H2 production.
